Several reserves and parks have implemented new fees within the last year, with the Timbavati, Madikwe and the Pafuri Concession in the Kruger National Park being just a few South African examples. The trend goes beyond South Africa’s borders as well, with Tanzania’s controversial new fees causing upheaval amongst the operators and lodges operating in the region.
But how are these fees being received by the trade? Onne Vegter, MD of Wild Wings Safaris, says, generally speaking, tourists understand the need for park fees or daily conservation fees. “Most reserves now charge entrance fees as well as some kind of conservation levy.” He adds that conservation and park fees in South Africa are generally well below the US$ rates charged by many other big game parks in other parts of Southern and East Africa.
David Ryan, Founder and CEO of Rhino Africa, says there is an understanding that park fees are an essential revenue stream for national parks. "If we want to see these parks sustained, given the increase in poaching across the continent, national parks' protection is vital. We also have to consider the effects of tourism on national parks and there seems to be consensus that a higher-price, lower-footprint model is preferred and believed to be more sustainable," he adds.
"Ideally what we need in this world, and in Africa in particular, is as much land under wildlife as possible. Unfortunately not all parks are profitable or have the visitor numbers to make them sustainable long term. You therefore need to acquire alternative revenue means, or raise money through entrance fees, through parks that are very profitable and popular to help sustain the more marginal ones," adds Ryan.
Faith Johnson, Product and Sales Manager of New Frontiers Tours, agrees that most visitors are happy to pay fees given the publicity surrounding poaching and conservation initiatives. “An example recently being the Timbavati, where it was brought to light that more revenue was generated through hunting than from conservation fees, instigating a push for the newly implemented levy to help balance the scales.”
The difficulty is that different parks have different ways of charging clients for these fees – some charge per vehicle, while others charge per person per night.
Vegter says: “My view is that vehicle entrance fees just complicate the process of quoting for transfers. I am in favour of one simple fee charged per person per night and added by each lodge to its invoice, either in advance when they invoice the agent or client for the accommodation, or added to the guests’ check-out bill to be paid at the lodge upon departure.”
He says fees charged upon entry to the gate can complicate matters, as self-drive tourists sometimes arrive without cash. “We find that some transfer companies exclude the gate fees from their pricing and expect the guests to pay it upon entry, while others include the gate fees when they invoice us.”
Johnson also says inconsistencies and issues around the implementation of fees can be a headache for operators. “Within the private reserves there seems to be no common rule – some fees are optional, some compulsory, some pre-paid and others payable locally. This confusion means the message isn’t always delivered correctly via the various booking channels and clients may feel short-changed if they’re having to pay additional fees locally or frustrated that their booking agent didn’t advise them upfront.”
Contracts Manager for New Frontiers Tours, Erica Gardner, adds that giving the trade more lead time when tariffs increased would go a long way to ease some of these challenges, providing operators with the opportunity to update tariffs accordingly and ensure clients are fully advised at the time of booking. “The same applies to entrance fees where there is no notification of fee changes, or little notification period. This results in us having to supplement the fee increases when our clients have already booked and paid,” she says.
Administrative issues aside, most operators agree that concession fees and conservation levies are some of the most fair and effective methods for raising funds for conservation and anti-poaching efforts, with one caveat – fees need to be accurately accounted for. Vegter says: “The park management is responsible for ensuring that these fees are adequately ringfenced and earmarked for conservation and do not disappear into the overall budget of the reserve or umbrella organisation. The parks and government have a responsibility to manage these funds transparently and account for the way the fees are used, to ensure they are appropriated responsibly.”
Vegter adds though, that while gate fees and levies are a great mechanism for funding conservation efforts, it essential that these funds are not seen by government as a cash cow or easy revenue stream that is exploited to the point of harming tourism. “Fees need to remain fair and reasonable, and should never become a deterrent to travellers or become a disproportionate percentage of their travel budget.”
Ryan also adds that park fees are not the "be-all and end-all of revenue sources for national parks". He says: "With thousands of square kilmoetres under wildlife needing continue protection, various income methods are needed. Everything from anti-poaching units to road maintenance and wardens are all important components to a successfully maintained back and need vast resources to fund optinally. It is possible that in the grand scheme of things, park fees are just a small component of the income statement and probably do not make up the bulk of the revenue."
